Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed twin appeals against assessment orders for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. The appeals challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for verification of purchases, but no additions were made.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for verification of purchases, but no additions were ultimately made by the lower authorities on this ground. Relying on the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT, the Tribunal quashed the impugned reopening.
Key Issues
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated for verification of purchases are valid if no additions are made on that ground and if the reopening is quashed based on judicial precedent.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals & 4642/Del/2025 for assessment years 2015-16 & 2016-17 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & orders Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076220857(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076223849(1), both dated 15.05.2025 in proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ respectively.
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that assessee’s first and foremost identical substantive ground challenges validity of the impugned reopening (s) itself as learned Assessing Officer has initiated section 148 proceedings against the assessee for the purpose of verification of its purchases from Himalaya International, whereas the twin reassessment(s) have ended up in adding 8% profits on total turnover which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion. It is thus clear that both the lower authorities have not made any addition qua the foregoing sole reopening ground of reopening. That being the case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories v. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) to quash both the impugned reopening (s) in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
These assessee’s twin appeals & 4642/Del/2025 are allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.
Pronounced in open court on 20.08.2025